LS14CH11_Holley ARI 29 August 2018 18:36 Annual Review of Law and Social Science Environmental Security and the Anthropocene: Law, Criminology, and International Relations Cameron Holley,1 Clifford Shearing,2 Cameron Harrington,3 Amanda Kennedy,4 and Tariro Mutongwizo1 1Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia; email: [email protected], [email protected] 2School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Mt. Gravatt, Queensland 4122, Australia; email: c.shearing@griffith.edu.au 3School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University, Durham DH1 3TU, United Kingdom; email: [email protected] 4School of Law, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales 2351, Australia; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2018. 14:185–203 Keywords First published as a Review in Advance on governance of security, environmental security, Anthropocene, energy July 12, 2018 security, water security, food security The Annual Review of Law and Social Science is online at lawsocsci.annualreviews.org Abstract https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci- This article analyzes the implications of the Anthropocene for the gover- 101317-030945 nance of security. Drawing on environmental law, green criminology, and Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2018.14:185-203. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 03/15/19. For personal use only. Copyright c 2018 by Annual Reviews. international relations, the article examines the development of environ- All rights reserved mental security scholarship over recent decades and shows similarities and differences in perspectives across the three disciplines. It demonstrates that the Anthropocene represents a significant challenge for thinking about and responding to security and the environment. It argues a rethinking is needed, and this can benefit from reaching across the disciplinary divide in three key areas that have become a shared focus of attention and debate regarding se- curity in the Anthropocene. These are, first, examining the implications of the Anthropocene for our understanding of the environment and security; second, addressing and resolving contests between environmental securities; 185 LS14CH11_Holley ARI 29 August 2018 18:36 and third, developing new governance responses that mix polycentric and state-backed regulation to bring safety and security to the planet. INTRODUCTION Discovering the Anthropocene—the age of the human—has constituted an enormous rupture across the sciences and, more gradually, the social sciences. At the center of the Anthropocene are cascading ecological modifications that have been reshaping our planet and are pushing us against the boundaries of “safe operating spaces” (Rockstrom¨ et al. 2009). The pervasive ecological and social challenges posed by the Anthropocene are thus new, rapid, and potentially irreversible and go to the very heart of our security and survival on earth (Kotze´ 2014, p. 131). Although far from a settled concept (Hamilton et al. 2015, Lidskog & Waterton 2016, Ruddiman et al. 2011), the Anthropocene signifies a new role for humankind: from a species that had to adapt to changes in its natural environment to one that has become a driving force in the planetary system (Biermann 2014, p. 57; Crutzen & Stoermer 2000; Steffen et al. 2015). Now that humans have been revealed as powerful “geological agents” (Chakrabarty 2009), the Anthro- pocene is prompting us to radically rethink our modes of existence (Latour 2014). An increasing body of work has accordingly examined, explored, and critiqued the concepts, consequences, and solutions within the Anthropocene. However, according to Lovbrand¨ et al. (2015, p. 212), much of this work has been underpinned by “marginal and instrumental roles granted to the social sciences and humanities...dominated by the natural sciences and focused on environmental rather than social change” (see also Lidskog & Waterton 2016). This has led to increasing assertions like those made by Vinuales˜ (2016, p. 5) that the Anthropocene “calls upon all disciplines, the entire body of human knowledge about the world, to analyze what is happening and how to face it.” These rally- ing cries are demanding change and have already begun to change thinking around the important issue of security, particularly in fields such as law, criminology, and international relations, for whom a fundamental topic is safety and security (Harrington & Shearing 2017, Shearing 2015). In the Anthropocene, law, criminology, and international relations scholars are beginning to accept that humans are shaping the future of the environment in ways that are not yet fully un- derstood, and that our very security is determined by both our use of and enmeshment with the environment (Biermann et al. 2016; Dalby 2017, p. 243; Floyd 2015a; Gunningham & Holley 2016; Hulme 2009; Shearing 2015). Indeed, the safety and security that earth systems have pro- vided to humans and our fellow species can no longer simply be regarded as the work of the Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2018.14:185-203. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 03/15/19. For personal use only. environment or Nature, and as something that we humans must simply live with. National se- curity is increasingly confronted by climate- and ecologically induced migration, resource wars, and even violent conflicts (Chalecki 2013, p. 4; Hamilton 2017, p. 580). Moreover, as humans are unmasked as a key geological and spatiotemporal force, difficult questions arise for how we incorporate the condition of the Anthropocene into security and whether and how humanity can secure itself from itself (Hamilton 2017, p. 580; Harrington 2017). As Dalby (2017, p. 235) nicely puts it, “Security too now needs an update!” This article presents a discussion of the current status of the governance of security in the age of the Anthropocene. We begin by briefly mapping the development and general status of scholar- ship on security and the environment. We then outline the contours of the Anthropocene before charting where environmental security scholarship arising from law, criminology, and interna- tional relations disciplines is likely to be headed. We highlight three shared and important issues 186 Holley et al. LS14CH11_Holley ARI 29 August 2018 18:36 arising from the Anthropocene that are currently challenging the three disciplines: rethinking the environmental security concept within the disciplines, managing contests between different envi- ronmental securities, and governing environmental security in response to the challenges posed by the Anthropocene. We conclude by summarizing a range of fundamental questions confronting environmental security scholarship in the Anthropocene. In such a short article, we have necessarily been selective in our coverage of the rich discussions and debates on security and the environment across law, criminology, and international relation- ships. For instance, we focus primarily on security as it relates to the Anthropocene and focus less on distinguishing other framings, such as national security, human security, and international conflict. We also take a broad view of security and its connection to environmental issues across the three disciplines and do not address the full diversity of definitions and distinctions that arise within these fields, their subfields, or the emerging environmental security studies field (Floyd & Matthew 2013). It is true that the concept of security and its relationship to the environment has been of more explicit concern to international relations scholars than to those of law or crimi- nology (Biermann et al. 2016; Dalby 2017, p. 243; Floyd 2015a; Hulme 2009; Shearing 2015). However, broad notions of security have been of interest to international environmental law and environmental regulatory scholarship, on which we focus, because they are concerned with gov- erning and reducing harms to social and environmental systems (Hulme 2009, Kim & Bosselmann 2013, Kotze´ 2014). The concept of security has also had influence, and been reflected, in crimino- logical fields, particularly its green variant, which examines environmental harms, environmental laws, and broader law and social control systems (Lynch & Stretesky 2014; Ngoc Cao & Wyatt 2016; Ruggiero & South 2013, p. 359; Spapens et al. 2016; Zedner 2009). Overall, our analysis across these three disciplines is guided by, and seeks to align with, claims that security itself is an idea that should no longer be constrained to a single discipline (Ngoc Cao & Wyatt 2016, p. 415; Zedner 2009, p. 10). Perhaps more importantly, by emphasizing similarities, with due attention to broad differences across the three disciplines, we seek to begin the process of developing greater interdisciplinary interaction, which will no doubt be needed to respond to the challenges of the Anthropocene (Vinuales˜ 2016, p. 5). SECURITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT The concept of security is nebulous, with few settled definitions (see generally Baldwin 1997). Because of this, the term can be differently understood within and across criminology, international relations, and law. At its broadest, security may be understood as the provision of conditions enabling diverse lives, social arrangements, legal and economic systems, and habitats (Dalby 2017, p. 235). Such understandings roughly accord with criminological views of security, which emerge Annu. Rev. Law.